Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>
>> <brevsnip>
>>
>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>
>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>
>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>
>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>
> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
> better than MP3 though.
>
>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>
> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
> the absolute worst.

I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
can stop the playback.

Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.

--
This night methinks is but the daylight sick.
-- William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice"

Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:

>This was the same problem they had in the mid-2000s when they rewrote
>the core and implemented it into Vista. Looking back, they actually did
>a good job. People forget that the beloved Windows 7 was just an
>optimized Vista.

They did a good job as of the second service pack for Vista that was
the backport of 7 to it, but that meant some people were stuck with a
beta OS for multiple years. I never had Vista, and was glad.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-05-24 11:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> <brevsnip>
>>>
>>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>>
>>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>>
>>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>>
>> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
>> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
>> better than MP3 though.
>>
>>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>>
>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>> the absolute worst.
>
> I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
> of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
> can stop the playback.
>
> Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.

YouTube Music doesn't have commercials if you pay for it. It also
removes ads from YouTube itself, making for a much more pleasant viewing
experience there too.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote at 15:32 this Friday (GMT):
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>
>>> <brevsnip>
>>>
>>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>>
>>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>>
>>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>>
>>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>>
>> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
>> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
>> better than MP3 though.
>>
>>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>>
>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>> the absolute worst.
>
> I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
> of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
> can stop the playback.
>
> Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.

Ads are annoying, but they recently added a screen lock feature, if you
wanted to give YouTube another chance.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 2024-05-24 11:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>
>>> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <brevsnip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>>>
>>>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>>>
>>> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
>>> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
>>> better than MP3 though.
>>>
>>>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>>>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>>>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>>>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>>>
>>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>>> the absolute worst.
>>
>> I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
>> of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
>> can stop the playback.
>>
>> Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.
>
> YouTube Music doesn't have commercials if you pay for it. It also
> removes ads from YouTube itself, making for a much more pleasant viewing
> experience there too.

I have plenty of subscriptions already. Everybody wants a cut.

I do have a USB-to-Lightning dongle. Might try a thumb drive of my tunes on
it. I copied them all to my Android tablet and can use that... except it's too
clumsy to carry when walking.

--
Your lucky number is 3552664958674928. Watch for it everywhere.

Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>
>>This was the same problem they had in the mid-2000s when they rewrote
>>the core and implemented it into Vista. Looking back, they actually did
>>a good job. People forget that the beloved Windows 7 was just an
>>optimized Vista.
>
>
> They did a good job as of the second service pack for Vista that was
> the backport of 7 to it, but that meant some people were stuck with a
> beta OS for multiple years. I never had Vista, and was glad.

I inherited a Vista laptop, a big beast of a laptop. Vista on it was an
abomination.

--
They spell it "da Vinci" and pronounce it "da Vinchy". Foreigners
always spell better than they pronounce.
-- Mark Twain

Le 23-05-2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> a écrit :
> On Wed, 22 May 2024 18:16:21 -0400, Joel wrote:
>
>> M$ replacing their kernel
>> with the Linux kernel would do NOTHING. You don't know anything.

My provider doesn't show me your message but it's stupid. You have no
argument. I displayed a lot from time to time. It's obviously the way
things are going. If you can't see it, you show more about your lack of
knowledge than his lack of knowledge.

>> Windows' kernel is no less sleek than Linux. The bloat is all on top.

It's not about the bloat, it's about the money. Microsoft doesn't win
money thanks to what you install on your computer.

> There is no longer any clear separation between the Windows “kernel” and
> all the other crap.

Everything is mixed since a long time ago. Some decades ago when a
judged asked Microsoft to deactivate Internet Explorer, they said it was
impossible.

> It’s all an irretrievable mess now, better abandoned
> and replaced with something cleaner and more modern. Like Linux.

They can keep going like that for a long time, they just don't want to
because it's a lot of effort to get few money. You just need a browser
to access the cloud and Office 365. That's where they want the money to
come.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 23-05-2024, vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> a écrit :
>
> But Microsoft wouldn't do that, because they would lose their monopoly[**]
> with the OS, with exhorbitant fees and all that. All just a pipe dream.

Why? They throw away Internet Explorer and provide just a front end to
Chrome with Edge, so they keep doing what they want for the same result
and less cost. They can do the same with Windows. Android did it, they
can do the same.

And the fees are certainly not exorbitant for Windows on the desktop.
The future for them is the cloud. Office 365 and Azure. They just need
to control the desktop, but they don't need a full OS for that. They
just need a graphical interface, Linux is already ready for that.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Le 24-05-2024, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> a écrit :
> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
> quality,

You don't need to be audiophile the hear the difference, you need a
better system.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

On Fri, 24 May 2024 08:00:39 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> Microsoft is still invested in Windows, but they are having trouble
> finding every possible way hackers will use to break into the system.
> They can foresee a lot, but the hackers are a lot more creative than
> anyone expected. Linux is better in this regard as is Apple, but even
> they get hacked along the way. If they were used as heavily as Windows
> is, those creative hackers would likely find better ways to break into
> them too.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/23/bing-is-down-bringing-duckduckgo-and-
ecosia-down-too/

Azure hiccup? I'd noticed some time ago that DuckDuckGo, while it says it
uses several search engines, is heavily dependent on bing. They also
dropped yandex as a source and were downplaying 'Russian disinformation'
sites.

Le 24-05-2024, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> a écrit :
>
> It's part of what I was saying about Microsoft not having an interest in
> replacing the Windows core with the Linux kernel. Microsoft has no
> interest in using a superior kernel as long as they have one that's good
> enough to offer the world which is simultaneously under their complete
> control. By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do that.

Does it really look like Android lost control using Linux? Do you
believe Microsoft couldn't do the same? If they can reduce the costs
when keeping control, they will.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 May 2024 18:16:21 -0400, Joel wrote:
>>
>>> M$ replacing their kernel
>>> with the Linux kernel would do NOTHING. You don't know anything.
>
>My provider doesn't show me your message but it's stupid. You have no
>argument. I displayed a lot from time to time. It's obviously the way
>things are going. If you can't see it, you show more about your lack of
>knowledge than his lack of knowledge.

Pray tell, then, what do you think MinWin is? It's very possible to
have a sleek *core* of a bloated OS, because it's just the
foundational code, it's false to say that the bloat is part of the
kernel, it's laughable, imagining that M$ would not have a semblance
of competitive structure, to their OS. The bloat is not the core of
the OS.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 03:41:48 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> On 24 May 2024 03:05:54 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>
>> ... Microsoft inherited the safe choice crown. The same process is at
>> work in the consumer world too.
>
> Never worked for mobile devices, though.

They must have had one of those fully automatic black rifles to shoot
themselves in the foot so many times. The Pocket PC did okay for
enterprises but the Palm was cheaper and arguably better. Then the Windows
Phone 7 attempt wasn't compatible. Leaning from their mistakes the Phone 8
wasn't compatible with the 7. The Metro fiasco didn't help. UWP was meant
with skepticism by developers who had been burned by Microsoft's
fickleness before.

I don't know if all the blame can be laid on Ballmer but he didn't help
any.

https://www.windowscentral.com/windows-10-developers-can-now-bring-their-
winui-3-apps-ios-android-macos-and-web

I don't know how well that attempt is going.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 08:04:25 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.

The ears are the only thing.

On Fri, 24 May 2024 09:59:44 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:

> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
> the absolute worst.

Are you talking about iTunes? Years ago our boss gifted us with iShuffles.
Of course, being Apple you couldn't just copy files to a device like every
other mp3 player but had to use the iTunes app on Windows. It was the most
fucked up counter-intuitive thing I ever worked with.

The API at itunes.apple.com is okay though. I wrote a little Python app to
query the database to amuse myself. Searching on a title to find the
artists that have covered it can lead to some little known artists that
you can then search on to find out what else they did.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 May 2024 09:59:44 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>> the absolute worst.
>
>Are you talking about iTunes? Years ago our boss gifted us with iShuffles.
>Of course, being Apple you couldn't just copy files to a device like every
>other mp3 player but had to use the iTunes app on Windows. It was the most
>fucked up counter-intuitive thing I ever worked with.

That's the thing, we could talk about codecs being used by whichever
service, etc., but Spotify simply supports everything, I'm listening
to a playlist with a native Linux app, no Apple bullshit, no Amazon or
YouTube bullshit. It might well be that I'm not getting the very best
sound available, but it's good enough for me, it's just background
noise, I have my MP3/FLAC collection with Audacious for more serious,
"audiophile" listening.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2024 09:59:44 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>
>>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>>> the absolute worst.
>>
>> Are you talking about iTunes? Years ago our boss gifted us with iShuffles.
>> Of course, being Apple you couldn't just copy files to a device like every
>> other mp3 player but had to use the iTunes app on Windows. It was the most
>> fucked up counter-intuitive thing I ever worked with.
>
>
> That's the thing, we could talk about codecs being used by whichever
> service, etc., but Spotify simply supports everything, I'm listening
> to a playlist with a native Linux app, no Apple bullshit, no Amazon or
> YouTube bullshit. It might well be that I'm not getting the very best
> sound available, but it's good enough for me, it's just background
> noise, I have my MP3/FLAC collection with Audacious for more serious,
> "audiophile" listening.
>
so you're an audiophile what is that ,
you get off on the sounds kids make

On 24 May 2024 18:17:43 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> Why? They throw away Internet Explorer and provide just a front end to
> Chrome with Edge, so they keep doing what they want for the same result
> and less cost. They can do the same with Windows. Android did it, they
> can do the same.

You skipped a step. Edge 1.0 sucked so badly that MS bit the bullet and
used chromium for Edge 2.0. MS may have many skills but browser
development never was one of them.

% <pursent100@gmail.com> wrote:
>Joel wrote:
>> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 May 2024 09:59:44 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>>>
>>>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>>>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>>>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>>>> the absolute worst.
>>>
>>> Are you talking about iTunes? Years ago our boss gifted us with iShuffles.
>>> Of course, being Apple you couldn't just copy files to a device like every
>>> other mp3 player but had to use the iTunes app on Windows. It was the most
>>> fucked up counter-intuitive thing I ever worked with.
>>
>> That's the thing, we could talk about codecs being used by whichever
>> service, etc., but Spotify simply supports everything, I'm listening
>> to a playlist with a native Linux app, no Apple bullshit, no Amazon or
>> YouTube bullshit. It might well be that I'm not getting the very best
>> sound available, but it's good enough for me, it's just background
>> noise, I have my MP3/FLAC collection with Audacious for more serious,
>> "audiophile" listening.
>>
>so you're an audiophile what is that ,
>you get off on the sounds kids make

You don't know that term? It means someone who's keen on high
fidelity sound reproduction. My motherboard's audio chips are
equivalent to DVD-Audio, and my headphones are high fidelity, so I
have all my music playing as well as can be, and it's easy, no need
for expensive equipment. The $30 self-powered speakers, I bought over
a decade ago, have a headphone jack.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>On 24 May 2024 18:17:43 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
>
>> Why? They throw away Internet Explorer and provide just a front end to
>> Chrome with Edge, so they keep doing what they want for the same result
>> and less cost. They can do the same with Windows. Android did it, they
>> can do the same.
>
>You skipped a step. Edge 1.0 sucked so badly that MS bit the bullet and
>used chromium for Edge 2.0. MS may have many skills but browser
>development never was one of them.

There was a brief period when IE7 was useful to me, because it was
snappier on my ancient computer, and it had been improved over
previous versions. But when I got a better CPU, I went back to
Firefox. Edge is useful for my Microsoft account stuff, as Chrome is
for Gmail, YouTube and Maps, but Firefox is my primary browser. It's
interesting, having the same three, that I had under Win11, under
Linux.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-05-24 1:59 p.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 2024-05-24 11:32 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-05-24 8:30 a.m., Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>>>>> Andrzej Matuch wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-05-24 3:00 a.m., RonB wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-05-24, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <brevsnip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Probably because some people think that Apple Music also requires Apple
>>>>>>>> hardware. Even without Apple hardware, the sound quality is superior as
>>>>>>>> is the selection.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You would have better ears than I have to tell the difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ears are one thing, but even if you only know about the
>>>>>> specifications, you would know that what Spotify offers can't compete.
>>>>>> Apple's lossy codec is the best there is, so a song encoded at 256kbps
>>>>>> using it will sound magnificent no matter what kind of speakers you use.
>>>>>> If that is not sufficient for you, it also offers lossless at no extra
>>>>>> charge. Meanwhile, the default for Spotify is AAC at 128kbps, using an
>>>>>> inferior codec that is probably the one offered by Nero. High quality
>>>>>> there is 256kbps, more or less on par with what Apple Music offers at
>>>>>> the low end but, again, with a worse encoder. There is no lossless option.
>>>>>
>>>>> But is the "loss" noticeable to human ears?
>>>>
>>>> It is. There is an additional punch to the Apple AAC encoder that is
>>>> lacking in Nero's. Nero's does a good job, but it isn't as good. It's
>>>> better than MP3 though.
>>>>
>>>>> And if so, does it matter? I enjoy a tune the same whether I listen to it
>>>>> through earbuds, $15 logitech speakers, whether in quiet or a bit of
>>>>> background noise. Most of musical information is low frequency (under 5 kHz),
>>>>> though the harmonics increase that up to maybe 16 kHz.
>>>>
>>>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>>>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>>>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>>>> the absolute worst.
>>>
>>> I stopped listening to YouTube while walking. Sick of commerials in the middle
>>> of a 10-minute tune. Also the slightest accidental touch of the phone screen
>>> can stop the playback.
>>>
>>> Switched to SomaFM... their Secret Agent channel has some good walkin' tunes.
>>
>> YouTube Music doesn't have commercials if you pay for it. It also
>> removes ads from YouTube itself, making for a much more pleasant viewing
>> experience there too.
>
> I have plenty of subscriptions already. Everybody wants a cut.
>
> I do have a USB-to-Lightning dongle. Might try a thumb drive of my tunes on
> it. I copied them all to my Android tablet and can use that... except it's too
> clumsy to carry when walking.

I subscribe to a few people on Locals, one person on YouTube and YouTube
Premium. I don't watch TV the way that I used to, and my subscription to
that is becoming increasingly useless. I'll watch Canadian football
during the summer and professional wrestling, but that's about it. My
wife insists on Netflix and Amazon Prime though.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-24 2:22 p.m., Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 24-05-2024, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> a écrit :
>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>> quality,
>
> You don't need to be audiophile the hear the difference, you need a
> better system.

Yeah, Chris's $15 speakers probably won't allow him to hear the
difference between a lossless Apple Music song and some crappy 128kbps
Spotify one.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-24 2:26 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 08:00:39 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> Microsoft is still invested in Windows, but they are having trouble
>> finding every possible way hackers will use to break into the system.
>> They can foresee a lot, but the hackers are a lot more creative than
>> anyone expected. Linux is better in this regard as is Apple, but even
>> they get hacked along the way. If they were used as heavily as Windows
>> is, those creative hackers would likely find better ways to break into
>> them too.
>
> https://techcrunch.com/2024/05/23/bing-is-down-bringing-duckduckgo-and-
> ecosia-down-too/
>
> Azure hiccup? I'd noticed some time ago that DuckDuckGo, while it says it
> uses several search engines, is heavily dependent on bing. They also
> dropped yandex as a source and were downplaying 'Russian disinformation'
> sites.

If they rely on Bing, people might as well just use Bing. I was rooting
for Brave Search to be decent, but I find it very inaccurate for my
searches. Bing, on the other hand, is rather good.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-24 2:29 p.m., Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 24-05-2024, Andrzej Matuch <andrzej@matu.ch> a écrit :
>>
>> It's part of what I was saying about Microsoft not having an interest in
>> replacing the Windows core with the Linux kernel. Microsoft has no
>> interest in using a superior kernel as long as they have one that's good
>> enough to offer the world which is simultaneously under their complete
>> control. By using Linux, they're handing over control. They won't do that.
>
> Does it really look like Android lost control using Linux? Do you
> believe Microsoft couldn't do the same? If they can reduce the costs
> when keeping control, they will.

All the power to them if they do, but I just don't see the corporation
using selling something they don't have complete control over.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.

On 2024-05-24 3:55 p.m., rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2024 09:59:44 -0400, Andrzej Matuch wrote:
>
>> For people who aren't audiophiles, there isn't a difference in audio
>> quality, but they will likely notice the greater selection from Apple. I
>> also think that Apple has an excellent interface, with YouTube's being
>> the absolute worst.
>
> Are you talking about iTunes? Years ago our boss gifted us with iShuffles.
> Of course, being Apple you couldn't just copy files to a device like every
> other mp3 player but had to use the iTunes app on Windows. It was the most
> fucked up counter-intuitive thing I ever worked with.
>
> The API at itunes.apple.com is okay though. I wrote a little Python app to
> query the database to amuse myself. Searching on a title to find the
> artists that have covered it can lead to some little known artists that
> you can then search on to find out what else they did.

I always hated that about the original iPod. It was by far the best
music player on the market, and its interface was excellent even if you
were using it in the car while driving, but the fact that you couldn't
copy back or forth was horrible. It was particularly troublesome if
something happened to your computer, causing data loss, and you couldn't
get your music back from your iPod.

--
Andrzej (Andre) Matuch
TG: @AndrzejMatuch
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king.